RBL 06/2013

Leuchter, Mark, and Jeremy M. Hutton, eds.

Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition
Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its
Literature 9
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Pp. x +
257. Paper. $31.95. ISBN 1589836065.

Pekka Pitknen
Cheltenham, United Kingdom
This book contains eleven essays on priests and Levites in the Hebrew Bible. They are
taken from papers presented at two recent SBL Annual Meetings for a corresponding
program unit (Priests and Levites in History and Tradition; see 10). The essays pertain
to a variety of related texts and time periods. In this broad context, the essays have been
broadly divided into three differing groups, even though this can only be taken in a broad
sense, as there is much overlap and, on the other hand, each essay stands on its own, with
the volume rather building into a kind of tapestry over the subject as a whole (a nice one
at that, as will be elaborated below). The first group of four essays (Priests and Levites in
Social Context) discusses historical and sociological aspects of the religious functionaries
of ancient Israel. The second group of four essays (Priests and Levites in Scriptural
Context) largely examines aspects of pentateuchal traditions about the priests and
Levites. The third group of three essays (Priests and Levites in Exegetical Context) focus
on how any of the pentateuchal and other biblical traditions relate to the Persian and
Hellenistic periods. In the following I will quickly summarize the contents of each essay
and then offer a few comments in response. I will then conclude with some general
comments in response to the volume as a whole.
Ada Taggar-Cohen discusses biblical priesthood from a comparative perspective with
Hittite priesthood (second millennium B.C.E.). It is a useful, even if a relatively brief,

This review was published by RBL 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

discussion about the similarities and differences between the two spheres that also reminds
us that priesthood as an institution, together with accompanying temple service, has
ancient roots in the Near East (a fuller discussion of Hittite priesthood can be found in her
larger work on the subject). The couple of cautions at the end of the essay concerning the
comparative approach are useful for reflection, but one might explicitly add that one
would not need to expect everything to be exactly the same between cultures that are
cognate but distinct as a whole when making comparisons.
Susan Ackerman examines priesthood and sacrificing in the late premonarchic and early
monarchic period. It is overall a solid discussion that teases out a number of the issues
involved. The main problem with the essay for me is the assumption that, because priests
are not directly mentioned as sacrificing in certain texts, this means that they did not.
This conclusion is of course possible as such but cannot be proven. Also, one does find it
interesting to reflect on the range of possible roles of a Nazirite (or vows in general), on
which the Bible does not seem to give a full picture (here Samuel and his relation to the
Shiloh sanctuary in 1 Samuel). For example, is it possible that these could encompass an
otherwise layperson so that this one could thereby be taken into the priestly sphere, in
whatever form, at lest for the duration of the vow, at least in some cases?
Jeremy Hutton includes a very nice summary of past academic discussion on the Levitical
towns, together with some remarks of his own on the topic. The presentation illustrates
how difficult is to make any definite conclusions on the matter, and this includes the
authors own conclusion, which to me seemed more aesthetic than as arising from the
preceding discussion. The treatment could have been clearer in places; it was not always
easy to follow in some of its detail. The short description of a possible anthropological
parallel to the Levitical towns was most interesting. An idea mentioned in passing (79,
describing a view by Hauer) that the list would name only those cities that were intended
to be institutionalised as members of the system, although Levites might be spread more
widely across the land, could in my view be one possible link toward a solution of this
little conundrum in biblical studies.
Sarah Shectman provides a good, straightforward discussion of the social status of priestly
and Levite women. Most of the comments seemed quite reasonable, in my view. While
the focus on the face of the essay is expressly on women, the coverage is in reality wider.
Joel Baden examines pentateuchal texts that describe the violent origins of the Levites in a
useful and interesting discussion. Baden pretty much relies on traditional source-critical
theories, as per his overall approach to the Pentateuch. Interestingly, the essay emphasizes
the diversity of traditions used by J (Gen 34; 49; Deut 33; perhaps Exod 32:2629 [see
below]). This brings to mind that there might be alternative source-critical explanations,

This review was published by RBL 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

too, for example, something more akin to fragmentary theories, as in traditional sourcecritical discussion the unity of sources is generally argued. For me, the comments
touching on the relation of postulated pentateuchal sources and the pentateuchal redactor
at the end of Deuteronomy was an interesting issuefor one thing, how (and perhaps
why in terms of the way things would have resulted) does one weave a coherent end result
there? On the postulated source-critical attribution of Exod 32:2629 (109), contrary to
Baden, Deut 10:89 could refer to the passage, as the expression at that time does not
require a strict chronology. So it seems difficult to make a conclusive source-critical
attribution (in terms of his own system, at least). Also, in connection with this, that Deut
33:8 and 33:9 speak about the same event is not clear, so the discussion on 110 suggesting
the original positioning of Exod 32:2629 around Exod 17:17 must remain speculative.
The discussion about the relationship (including chronological one) of the examined texts
on 11315 is also speculative, even if interesting. In addition, interestingly, the two
aspects and related etiologies of the Levitestheir scattering and their cultic statusare, as
Baden suggests, both taken into account in the Priestly materials of the Pentateuch, and
one could add the concept of Levitical towns in Josh 21 as attesting to the scattering.
Cory Crawford discusses the relationship of the tabernacle and the temple. Here he is more
open to a possible historicity behind the narrative than many other recent treatments (as
he also shows by his review of scholarship). By way of response, I note that it is a moot
point whether nomadic tribes could have found a way to collect materials needed for the
construction of the tabernacle; as such, it is as much an aesthetic decision for a historian of
what he or she may find plausible. Much depends of the use of argumentative networks
(argumentationsketten) across the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible here. Even if potentially
historical, the biblical materials could also partly be of the nature of a stylized description.
On 2 Kgs 16:17 (12831), what exactly takes place there seems not entirely clear; a move
toward aniconism is no more or no less than one possible explanation. A related
conclusion (130) is interesting but could also be coincidental (and, is there a full parallel,
e.g., considering the pomegranates in the priestly garments?), also considering that
postulated authors (of Kings) at a later time do not seem to find the description of the
Solomonic temple problematic, even when one could in principle think with the author of
this essay that those creating a description of the tabernacle could have different views,
agendas, and knowledge of the past than any author or authors of Kings. Still, Crawford
provides a fairly nicely formulated hypothesis, even when, in addition, from the
perspective of argumentation, a postulated marrying in of Shilonite and Jerusalemite
traditions would probably be more cogent for a time when Jerusalem was just establishing
its hegemony than for a time some two to three centuries later (see the comments at the
bottom of 132).

This review was published by RBL 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

Peter Altmann examines Levites and priests in Deuteronomy, with a focus on 18:18.
The essay starts with a very useful reflection on related methodological approaches by both
American and European scholarship. Many of the comments are more widely applicable
to Old Testament scholarship as a whole. The second part of the essay provides an
exegetical analysis of Deut 18:18. The exegetical discussion (esp. 14653) could have
been presented more clearly, even when the points made are very good as a whole and
illustrate the difficulties of finding historical contexts for the biblical materials. In terms of
the whole, I would also ask the question of as to what extent Deut 18:18 could constitute
what we call loose language in terms of its distinction between priests and Levites.
Stephen Cook provides an interesting treatment of potential correlations between
Deuteronomy (esp. 18:18) and Jeremiah, with reference also to the reform of Josiah. One
interesting related point is that Cook essentially reads 2 Kgs 23:9 as being in coherence
with Deut 18:18 (16365) in certain important ways, yet assumes that Josiah went
beyond the powers that would apparently have been bestowed on him by Deuteronomy
on an average reading (166). It is correct that there is no big contradiction here in the
treatment of the author, but there is nevertheless the question of to what extent one
should (and in practice would) expect Josiahs reform to correspond with Deuteronomys
vision, including in each and every identifiable detail. Related to this is the question of
how one should read the corresponding passages and how the ancients would and
should have read them. Another interesting detail (162) is the suggestion about the
possible relationship between Jeremiah and Shiloh priesthood (including Jer 19:3 versus
1 Sam 3:11, referring to earlier work by Jeremy Hutton, also the possible link between
Abiathar and Anathoth [1 Kgs 2:26] and Jeremiah [Jer 33]); of course, the book of
Jeremiah refers to Shiloh directly, too (Jer 7; 26). If so, assuming a preexilic date for the
books of Samuel, the book of Jeremiah would probably be aware of these books and would
purposefully have alluded to them. If so, the interesting point is that this is occurring at a
level that is not easily distinguishable on a casual reading. This might then have bearing
on arguments made about the perceived lack of quotations from other biblical books that
might be expected in terms of establishing the chronological order of biblical documents.
This said, if the book of Jeremiah, on the other hand, is building on a common tradition,
the reuse of the saying in 1 Sam 3:11, unless a common saying or otherwise coincidental,
would suggest the passing on of that particular tradition or saying for potentially up to
centuries. Further, Cooks treatment of course suggests (at least the strong possibility of)
the same for an overall link with Shiloh in Jeremiah that may date back for centuries. This
actually would seem to tie with Cooks overall approach that the Levitical lineage systems
are of old, even premonarchical, origin (155, at least in terms of the overall lineage
system). This then begs the further question of how these (Levitical) lineages originated,
which is not included in the considerations of the essay. Finally, about the last two

This review was published by RBL 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

paragraphs of the essay, some of the comments included in them seemed to be slightly
non sequitur in relation to the preceding discussion.
Mark Christian suggests that much of the pentateuchal material that pertains to priests
and Levites was formulated with the concerns of essentially what one might consider a
kind of middle class in mind in the postexilic period. This is a good straightforward
treatment in a number of ways, closely following a current mainstream approach to the
Pentateuch and containing some interesting insights and suggestions on that basis. There
seemed to be a few minor errors included in the presentation (e.g., some of the Akkadian
spellings in n. 5, a verse reference in n. 72, and reference to Deut 30:17b at the bottom of
194). In the opinion of this reviewer, the presentation could have been just a bit clearer in
a few places, too.
Jeffrey Stackert examines the cultic status of the Levites in the Temple Scroll. The main
argument of part 2 clarifying the status of Levites both in terms of elevating their status
but also placing restrictions on them seems a good one as a whole, even though, in
relation to the conclusion on page 211, looking back at the preliminaries (part 1), the
point that a late text such as Malachi does not attest a strict terminological distinction
between priests and Levites (202) demonstrates the strong possibility that such lack of
precision was intentional or incidental and therefore that the same could have been the
case with Deuteronomy. If so, the Wellhausenian idea of Dtr being a midpoint in a
related development would be called into question, as would Stackerts conclusion in part
2. In other words (and as already suggested in my response to another essay above), we
might be dealing with something like loose language rather than an actual lack of capacity
for distinction in the mind of an author. This then also begs the question, and these
comments are intended to complement the authors related analysis in part 3, together
with a summary of a range of possible related alternative readings (21112), of why a
particular feature is more emphasized in a particular document than in another one. Is it
because of a historical development or because of authorial interests (and to what extent
should one think these might relate to specific community interests?), intention, and
characteristics? (Of course, a combination of these two aspects is also as such possible.)
And, any accidents of survival in terms of the current canonical collection as a sample of
Israelite literature from differing times and settings, with the times and settings
themselves subject to academic discussion and debate, may also affect our readings.
Finally, Mark Leuchter discusses how the book of Daniel has used earlier traditions and
adapted and reworked them in its Hellenistic setting. It is an interesting essay that shows
the diversity of approaches by authors to related issues in the Hellenistic period. Again we
come to the question of to what extent a particular text represents the view of an author,
or a community as potentially channeled through an author, and what type of sociological

This review was published by RBL 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

conclusions can be made based on the viewpoint of a particular text, as much as authorial
intention (whether express or unconsciously projected by the author) can be recovered
from it. One related question to ask is that if a text expresses a particular view, is this
intended in an exclusive manner or otherwise (e.g., 218 n. 17, based on Ezek 3:1, For
Ezekiel, the divine word can only be obtained from the mouth of the priest-prophet who
has consumed it [emphasis added]; in any case there would easily seem to be other ways
to interpret this divine-symbolic action by the prophet). Further, what might have been
happening in the society/societies outside spheres potentially recoverable from available
texts, at least in terms of plausibilities?
In sum, this is a very nice collection of essays with multiple perspectives based on largely
mainstream approaches (some of the most conservative positions are also mentioned,
even if largely in passing) and with some excellent bibliographic links to further research,
even when I do not (nor probably do the authors themselves) think that it gives actual
answers to a number of the questions the book revolves around. The book is
recommended reading for all Old Testament/Hebrew Bible scholars, regardless of whether
and to what extent one might agree with any of the conclusions espoused. One
interesting point that arises from the discussions is that conclusions on matters discussed
in the essays are quite dependent on ones overall choices of interpretative frameworks for
the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible as a whole, thus necessitating a holistic approach to the
topic in the context of the whole of the corpus of this collection of world literature. One
may also in general consider issues that relate to theory construction and how one should
find a related best fit for the biblical data, both at micro and macro levels, and reflect on
how one might be able to determine what a best fit is.

This review was published by RBL 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.